Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 14:09:25 01/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2001 at 16:42:15, William H Rogers wrote: >On January 03, 2001 at 12:36:51, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On January 03, 2001 at 09:52:06, José Carlos wrote: >> >>> Lately, people have been talking here about significant results. I'm not >>>really sure if probabilistic calculus is appropiate here, because chess games >>>are not stocastic events. >>> So, I suggest an experiment to mesure the probabilistic noise: >>> >>> -chose a random program and make it play itself. >>> -write down the result after 10 games, 50 games, 100 games... >>> >>> It should tend to be an even result, and it would be possible to know how many >>>games are needed to get a result with a certain degree of confidence. >>> If we try this for several programs, and the results are similar, we can draw >>>a conclusion, in comparison with pure probabilistic calculus. >>> >>> Does this idea make sense, or am I still sleeping? :) >>> >>> José C. >> >> >> >>I have done this experiment with Chess Tiger with fixed openings and reversing >>the colors for each opening, on a large number of openings. >> >>This experiment and the results I have got is the reason why I say all the time >>that statistical significance is very important. >> >>When you see a program beating itself 10-4, you begin to understand what I mean. >> >> >> Christophe > >I agree with you Chris. I found that my earlier version of my program had more >defense coding than offense coding, so black tended to play a better game. >Kind of funny in any event. > >Bill Offense and defense are 2 sides of the same coin. For humans it is not for psychological reasons, but comps are immune to psychology. I think what you observed was a statistical aberration or a bug at work or both.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.